In this episode we examine the claim of Evolution as science and refute how science can only start at the same point as the creationist. It is only by leaps of speculation of what would have been necessary for Evolution to occur that the atheist or Evolutionist can lean upon to determine origin by that theory. But it bypasses science to lean on faith that more evidence would present itself eventually. And faith that the atmosphere had for no reason in itself to create a viable environment for Evolution to occur. And to do no unnaturally in a closed time period.
Evolution made its way into science journals as fact. Yet the facts present no conclusive evidence, only conclusions speculated from the scientific studies of what can be tested, and assumed the conclusions can prove out as more information produces.
- Difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution
- Darwin and Spencer presenting their cases
- Case made for Evolution presented
- Biggest proof they claim for evidence
- Why Evolution cannot be true – Francis Crick discovers complex DNA
- Proof by intricate design
- Why scientists present it as fact when it is not
Darwin did not use the term “evolution.” in his 1859 work of “The Origin of Species.” He and a philosopher Herbert Spencer debated on theories. Spencer was a naturalist influenced by Francis Bacon and Rosicrucian philosophy and took his side of the information and merely declared evolution.
Darwin argued for “decent with modification” within species, while Spencer used the term “Natural Selection” to explain that certain characteristics won out to form different species, and that simpler creatures existed and natural selection was a factor behind evolving into other variations and types.
Though Darwin denied creationism, he was opposed to Spencer’s deductive reasoning for conclusions calling them generalizations, but Spencer as a philosopher became more vocal and credible. Darwin stated that Spencer’s ideas were not of any scientific use as they do not aid one in predicting what will happen in any particular case. In other words, Spencer’s uninformed and non-professional deductions have no validity.
Scientific community itself admits it has not ample evidence as of yet to conclusively defend Evolution. Biology alone does not answer the question how and why. Nor does it even answer the possibility. It only assumes by what would need to occur. In other words, it is simply speculated. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine says this in their journal:
No one YET knows which combination of molecules first met these conditions, but researchers have shown how this process MIGHT have worked by studying a molecule known as RNA. Researchers recently discovered that some RNA molecules CAN greatly increase the rate of specific chemical reactions, including the replication of parts of other RNA molecules. IF a molecule like RNA COULD reproduce itself (perhaps with the assistance of other molecules), it COULD form the basis for a very simple living organism. IF such self-replicators WERE packaged within chemical vesicles or membranes, they MIGHT have formed “protocells” — early versions of very simple cells. Changes in these molecules COULD lead to variants that, for example, replicated more efficiently in a particular environment. In this way, natural selection would begin to operate, creating opportunities for protocells that had advantageous molecular innovations to increase in complexity.
Constructing a plausible hypothesis of life’s origins WILL require that many questions be answered. Scientists who study the origin of life DO NOT YET know which sets of chemicals COULD have begun replicating themselves.
All these hopeful words, yet nothing factual that provide absolute evidence besides what is assumed would have to happen for it to conclude.
We are not scientists, but we have collected the information known to see that it falls short of validating an absolute claim as the Evolutionists have declared and entered into journal, as well as education. Despite the facts and known properties, we still agree with the Bible and do not think the valid facts contrast the account of origin that the Bible declares.
Both the Evolutionist and Creationist have the same information. Just where it concludes is the difference. And both are by faith.